Dimond Brothers Bungle Latin and Theology ·
No, Mark 16:9—20 Are Not a Different Category
The Mystery of The Gospel of Mark
Melissa Dougherty | 19 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1s-tCfZ_E4
19:31 For a Catholic, this actually is a question of the standing before the Lord.
In 1912, while Pope St. Pius X was ruling as vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was credited by him with power to define basically on behalf of the papacy.
A permission is not a definition, but a definition is. Here is Q II from a document on the Gospels of Mark and Luke:
II. Utrum rationes, quibus nonnulli critici demonstrare nituntur postremos duodecim versus Evangelii Marci (Marc. XVI, 9-20) non esse ab ipso Marco conscriptos sed ab aliena manu appositos, tales sint quae ius tribuant affirmandi eos non esse ut inspiratos et canonicos recipiendos; vel saltem demonstrent versuum eorumdem Marcum non esse auctorem?
R. Negative ad utramque partem.
[PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO BIBLICA
DE AUCTORE, DE TEMPORE COMPOSITIONIS ET DE HISTORICA VERITATE EVANGELIORUM SECUNDUM MARCUM ET SECUNDUM LUCAM
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19120626_vangelo-marco_lt.html]
We have no right to suppose the verses 9 to 20 ("last twelve verses", duodecim means twelve) are not canon and not inspired. We also have no right to consider Mark isn't the author.
Obviously, we have no right to consider the reasons given by many critics as conclusive.
20:32 It's the Latin word for a book that is no longer a scroll.
Technically, a volume is always a scroll, so it's a misnomer if you find it on things you can turn the pages of. It means "rolling thing" and it means you roll the two cylinders so one opens and the other closes around relevant respectively irrelevant parts of the text.
A codex is all or any book with pages you can turn. So your paper back from Penguin or Puffin is really a codex.
They copy the format of wax tablets. When a secretary wants to take down notes, it's useful if he can take down many of them So, one side of the wood is carved out and filled with wax, so is the other and then another piece of wood is added with hinges.
Once you copy that in parchment, you have a codex or what we understand as a book, and the first to use the codex form extensively were early Christians.
20:48 I'd dispute Sinaiticus and Vaticanus being the most reliable.
I'd suggest they were so well preserved, because they weren't used.
I'd suggest they weren't used, because Christian Church men thought they were copies that missed something.
I'd suggest they missed something because they were written by Arians. That's why the JW love them.
1 John5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. 7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. 8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
Verse 7 is lacking in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
To me this makes it very probable they were written by Arians or by someone pandering for them.
22:25 He actually said "not until the 5th C., many of them"
= some earlier on.
25:20 How about Mark adding it?
Here is my hypothesis, starting in St. Clement's view of the Second Gospel:
a) St. Luke brings his Gospel before St. Peter to get it ratified.
b) When the first Pope sees it, he's over joyed, he holds two scrolls, the one by Luke and the Gospel of St. Matthew, reads alternatively from each, showing how well they fit
c) St. Mark believes his Pope is finally getting to dictating (becoming the author of) a Gospel, so he notes down what he hears
d) St. Peter notes what has happened, and gives his blessing to consider Mark's notes as a Gospel;
e) he later notes that it ended in
But they going out, fled from the sepulchre. For a trembling and fear had seized them: and they said nothing to any man; for they were afraid.
f) so he gives St. Mark a final lesson,
But he rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalen, out of whom he had cast seven devils. On to:
But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.
g) leading to a co-existence of both versions
h) and the longer one could finally slowly start to triumph when the Pope or someone in Rome confirmed it was genuine.
27:09 Going back to what I said, most of Mark comes from St. Peter's alternate readings of Matthew and Luke.
It makes sense if a "second edition" addition arising in a different situation would involve a different grammar, either St. Peter's or Mark's own personal one.
Check which of "main Mark" best matches I and II Peter in grammar.
But "words only found here" is simply not an argument. That could be prompted by the content, for instance.
27:24 Certainly Paul handled a snake in Acts.
But the hypothesis here is one of dishonesty, that is of retro-positing the event into a prophecy or promise by Jesus that never occurred.
27:31 Not just Elisaeus, but the verb form is such it could mean "you will begin to drink poison" and St. Benedict of Nursia fulfilled that one, he made a sign of the cross over a chalice handed him and it burst. The monks under him thought his leadership was too harsh. He then left.
28:11 Answer, the Gospel is anyway based on three sources, St. Peter reading Matthew, St. Peter reading Luke and St. Peter adding own memories.
So, presumably, when Sts Peter and Mark returned to the task, the first Pope had in the meantime read Luke 8:2 and forgotten he had already mentioned her individually.
29:43 Jesus did not say each of the disciples would do this.
30:35 Let me break it down.
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
Refers to each one. By the "faith vs works" debate, we Catholics consider "believe" means believe in all Jesus said and try to act on it with some consistency, not just credal belief.
And these signs shall follow them that believe:
Here Jesus is speaking of the collective. Not each individual member.
30:49 It's not a valid proof text for snake handling, since the story of St. Paul is already following the believers everywhere, and so is the one for St. Benedict nearly drinking poison.
But it is a valid proof text against any Church which since it began has had no miracles to show, Lutherans, Calvinists and a few more.
31:06 Jesus didn't say I, Hans Georg Lundahl, or you, Melissa Dougherty, should be driving out demons.
However, the second best known contemporary Catholic exorcist, after recently deceased Gabriele Amorth, said, prior to the 1960's, it took hours to up to a day at worst to drive out a demon.
The Catholic Church is still doing it. Note, what Father Ripperger adds after it begs the question whether the Catholic hierarchy he is under and he considers the Catholic Church is the genuine Catholic Church.
32:35 Yes, I mentioned this small group of people in Appalachia were misusing it.
A much more legitimate use is Catholics of the 16th C. saying "look, Calvin isn't and Luther wasn't doing any miracles"
John Calvin's comment on the verse was the keynote for Protestantism attacking contemporary accounts of Catholic miracles, and in the resurge of that, Pierre Bayle and Enlightenment attacking miracles overall.
32:53 Key word
do it ... in the days of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Göbekli Tepe hadn't been dug up, so they simply
couldn't ask whether that was the city of Babel. Rocketry hadn't been invented, so they
couldn't ask whether that was the kind of tower Nimrod tried to invent.
But I'm not DOING things differently, for instance believing Genesis 11:1 to 9 is a historic account is doing things the very same way that Christians have been doing for 2000 years, I just translated St. Thomas' comment on it from Postilla in libros Geneseos into English the other day.
33:46 Oh yes, there is.
That actual baptism can be substituted by desire of it (I argued against the Dimond brothers about "aut voto eius" in the Council of Trent the other day) with martyrdom as the maximum of this desire, would account for the omission here noted.
But that actual baptism is the
ordinary means of salvation is accounted for in the inclusion in the first part of the verse.
34:06 As said, Jesus is here, like John 3, not limiting the act of belief to just
credal belief, but one needs to also act on belief.
So, omitting to get baptised would be acting against the belief and on one level "not believing" ... unless missing out on baptism were totally against one's intentions, as when St. Emerentiana was martyred while still a catechumen.
35:31 Miracles happen to this day, and we know that the Two Witnesses will do some.
38:30 There is no reason to consider II Maccabees as an Apocryphon.
The Jewish canon was not finished as to Ketuvim, and the unbelieving Jews who excluded II Maccabees or Sirach have no authority over us.
40:15 Our check and balance is the Tradition of the Apostles and the Magisterium that's faithful to Bible and Tradition.
41:57 Whoever wrote that was in connexion with the older majority manuscript tradition, kind of resisting to take the hint I consider as coming eventually from Rome.
